Congress will require American automakers to achieve fleet-wide fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The deal struck late last night by Congressional negotiators and hailed as “an historic advancement,” would put America on the slow track towards meeting the same efficiency standards that Europe, China, and most of the developed world already enjoy.
Automakers are currently required to achieve fuel efficiency of 27.5 mpg for cars, and 22.2 mpg for light trucks, minivans, and SUVs. The Senate voted to raise fuel efficiency standards in June, but opposition from Detroit’s favorite spokesman, Michigan Congressman John Dingell, delayed House assent until now.
The package nearly fell apart this week when Mr. Dingell insisted on leaving sole authority to regulate automobile mileage standards with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department. That would have weakened the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, led by California, to regulate auto emissions of carbon dioxide, which are in large measure a function of the amount of fuel burned.Federal court rulings this year have decided this so-called pre-emption issue in favor of the E.P.A. and the states, decisions that Mr. Dingell hoped to undo by Congressional action. The traffic safety administration has had authority over fuel-efficiency standards since 1975 but has not imposed any significant increase since 1985. The E.P.A. is currently writing rules to comply with a Supreme Court ruling this year that gave it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and is weighing an application by California and 14 other states to set their own emissions standard.
The authority of the E.P.A. to regulate tailpipe emissions and the right of California and other states to set their own, higher standards were considered deal-breakers by Ms. Pelosi and her fellow California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, weighed in late in the week to tell negotiators that he would oppose the bill if the Mr. Dingell’s preemption language stayed in.
Mrs. Pelosi and Democratic leaders in the Senate rejected Mr. Dingell’s preemption effort, but softened the blow by agreeing to allow the car companies to retain a credit for vehicles capable of running on a blend of gasoline and ethanol. That credit was set to expire in 2008 but now will begin to decline in 2014 and be eliminated entirely by 2020.
The fuel efficiency increase is part of a larger energy bill that the House and Senate leadership hope to pass by the end of the year.
Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency [NYT]
(Photo: *USB*)
More From Consumerist
-
Here’s Why Everyone Is Talking About The U.S. Government Minting A Trillion-Dollar Coin
-
20,000 AT&T Workers Go On Strike
-
‘Six Strikes’ Anti-Piracy Program Delayed To 2013, This Time Because Of Hurricane Sandy
-
Longshoremen’s Port Strike Averted: The Flatscreen TVs Must Flow
-
Target Expands Holiday Online Price-Matching Policy To A Year-Round Thing
@ironchef: There are several companies and groups working on enzymes that produce synthetic gasoline.
Its been done, so renewable petroleum is indeed a possibility.
@spinachdip: Then call the ID bluff. Tell them “ok we will teach it… where are the materials?”
I already told you I hate junk science, and the best way to destroy junk science is to put it out there and refute it with evidence. Make them prove ID or in reality disprove evolution. The areas of evolution theory that ID can disprove will only make the science stronger by eliminating the crap.
I can’t prove God, but I can show you where science theory and scripture agree. I can also hold your feet to the fire and make you prove your science “fact” or admit it is a theory and has the possibility of being wrong.
If it takes people that believe the earth is only 8000 years old to make the science in the classroom honest, I am all for it.
@danio3834: Good to know, have they said how long it will take to get the technology viable?
@trollkiller: I should also add, you’re making the all-too typical twofold mistake that laymen make when using “fact” and “theory”. It would behoove you, especially as a home schooling parent, to read up on Stephen J. Gould. I think you’ll see how much rhetorical trickery Creationists and IDists get away with.
@joelja:
You know, getting more power from the same block might not be useless in environmental terms. Fuel economy may have been stagnant over the last few decades, but power has been pretty steadily rising. I suspect detuning some of the engines that we’ve been getting in the last few years could pay off in terms of economy and reliability.
@goller321: And here we see what is the core of far leftist liberal agendas. On the surface is all wild exaggeration and straw man argument tactics to inflate their sense of benevolence. Then, there is the hidden and violent underlying agendas which basically boil down to eliminating anyone they disagree with. So, I wonder why a truly socialist form of government has never worked? Oh, thats right, because they generally degrade into brutally oppressing any form of dissent as it serves in the best interests of the body politic writ large.
Here you have one side that says, “Own this, do it this way, or else,” and then you have “Buy the product that serves your needs at the price your willing to pay.” Which sounds more adaptable, sustainable, and pleasant?
Um… World War II wasn’t fought against “against socialistic, communistic ideas.” That was the Cold War. World War II was fought against imperialist dictatorships that were fascist and heavily nationalistic and, by the way, virulently opposed themselves to “communistic ideas.” Seriously dude, read some primary sources from the 30s and 40s. I really wish the right wing could extricate themselves from whatever it is that keeps their brains shackled in the 1950s.
@spinachdip: I know where you are going with this, but your Gould fellow is moving the fact bar to suit his needs. “in science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”" also from the Gould page “The second and third arguments for evolution-the case for major changes-do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.”In Gould’s world “looks like” is good enough. Pretty much the ID stance don’t you think? Sorry but inferernce is never as secure as observation.
[www.stephenjaygould.org]
I looked up fact [www.answers.com] and nowhere on the page did I see anything that came close to Gould’s definition. I did find the following and I think it sums up the difference between fact and theory nicely. (it is from the answers.com link)
In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. Scientific facts are believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.
This is the problem, the middle and high school text books show evolution as cut and dried. The books don’t say “it looks like this creature evolved from that creature” they say “this creature evolved from that creature”. Stating theory as fact. Unless you have the interim animals in sufficient numbers to breed, you can’t make the claim as fact. (I put in the “breed” disclaimer to eliminate any chance of finding a birth defect and claiming a missing link)
Seriously if you can get your hands on a high school biology book, you will be shocked. First you will be shocked that it is written at a 4th grade level and second you will be shocked at the “facts” it contains.
I remember what I was taught about evolution and I see how much of it has been tossed due to new evidence. I also see what has been held onto without good supporting evidence. It bugs me that science will hold onto things that makes little logical sense because it fits the story. It also bugs me when the ID people do the same. No Noah did not have a T-Rex riding along on the ark. All dinosaurs were not vegetarians.
Children deserve to be taught the facts as facts and the theories as theories. We may be robbing ourselves of brilliant theories because we have told the children the problem has already been solved.
To put this back on topic, what if we told our kids that 30 MPG cars were it, you can’t squeeze any more mileage out of a car and they listened?
BTW thanks for the heads up on Gould, I am going to look more into his work.
@celyn: I really wish the right wing could extricate themselves from whatever it is that keeps their brains shackled in the 1950s.
It is the smell of hippies that keeps us in the 50s.
@rioja951: What are you talking about? Ethanol burns dirtier than gasoline, and to make it from corn, we have to burn almost an equivalent amount of fossil fuels. Ethanol subsidies are nothing more than government blowjobs for agricorp lobbyists.
@trollkiller:
Don’t cite the H. pylori studies, if you’re trying to prove scientific bias. It took a mere 15 years for their original study to make its way into the medical community – not because anyone was attempting to hide it, but because that’s a somewhat standard (shorter, really) length of time between a discovery of that magnitude (a bacterium which survives *in* the stomach, which is extremely inhospitable) and enough evidence to prove it.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and the scientific community does just that – searches for evidence. If you really wish to get technical, other researchers were replicating the experiments a mere 5-6 years after the original study.
Science moves at a slow pace, yes, but that’s because there’s not enough money to replicate *EVERY* experiment, so one has to choose between attempting to replicate an experiment which does not mesh with what we currently know, and an experiment which shows more promise. We always get around to the unusual, but the individuals who provide grant money do so on the promise of results.
I’ll hunt around, I recall an article on this precise subject which explains things far better than I can in a limited space.
With regards to evolution, it is the basis for nearly all of modern medical science. If one casts off evolution as though it were a sackcloth, one must also cast off everything derived from it – it would no longer be science.
On the subject of ‘fact’ vs. ‘theory,’ a ‘fact’ is an observation of an indisputable nature. “Water is wet,” “Fire is hot.” A Theory is a hypothesis which, though it cannot be proven absolutely (there is very little which can be proven absolute), has been proven to such a great degree that one can state it with confidence. “Disease is caused by germs,” “The Sun is the center of the solar system.” You cannot *directly observe* the last two items, but no one would (assuming sanity, in modern times) deny them. We have such great bodies of evidence pointing at them that they have risen from “Hypothesis” to “Theory.” The fact (har har) of the matter is that “fact” and “theory” mean two entirely different things in the context of science vs. the world at large. This is in the same way that “Imaginary Number” does not mean the same thing to you (presumably) as it does to a mathematician.
@WV.Hillbilly: Sophisticated and refined? Hell, I grew up in Virginia. And to answer your question, I drove from Buffalo to Seattle in three days, then to San Diego in another three, then from there to Ohio (via that vast American West) in three more days. Plus time to stop over with friends and see some sights, the whole loop-de-loop took two weeks to cover 8,000 miles. All in a ’98 Corolla, that got 36mpg going 85 most of the way.
The point the greenie wackos are trying to make is not the Luddite or Socialist ones of which we seem to be accused. The cars Big Three makes are, by and large, wasteful pieces of junk. You can easily make an SUV get 40mpg, without breaking the bank, and with plenty of horsepower. Electric traction drives can deliver way more torque than internal combustion (like I said, try flooring a Tesla); that’s why all diesel locomotives are actually hybrids. The reason Big Three hasn’t is pure laziness, combined with the US policy of artificially depressing gas prices, encouraging waste.
Damn those cowardly polititians!
This will not reduce oil consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. They took the path of least resistance, and least effect. This does nothing. The people who drive big vehicles will still drive them, they just won’t be able to buy new, more modern ones.
@JiminyChristmas: And most people outgrow ad-hominem attacks by the age of 22 and discuss ideas on merit instead of just knee jerk reactions. Oh wait, I mean, er “Ayn Rand is evil”. There we go, all better
@ExecutorElassus:
To paraphrase your request, how about you provide some peer-reviewed scientific articles written by independent researchers (that is, not funded by private or government grants ear-marked specifically for researching the effects of man on global warming) that verifies global warming is caused by man, and verifies man has the ability to reverse the global warming.
If you walk up to 100 academic climate-change scientists, and you say “I’m going to pay you $XX for a study to research to what extent man has on global warming, and to what extent global warming is detrimental to man,” how many of those climate-change scientists are going to present results that create alarm, a sense of importance, and high-priority? Honestly. Yes, I understand principles behind scientific process. But also understand that all scientists are human, and subject to influence of personal concerns, professional ambition, politics within their field. How many of those 100 climate-change scientists are going to hope you’re willing to pay them another $XX for another study? What are they willing to say to ensure that? If these climate-change scientists regularly publish findings that state man has a negligible impact on climate change, and climate change has a negligible impact on man, how much more funding would these scientists expect for future studies? And what would these climate-change scientists do for employment if no one was willing to pay them for any more studies? Who would feed their kids? Contribute to the retirement? Offer them tenure? What economic future do they have without a sense of prioity or importance?
Fear and alarmism is big money, kids. It sells newspapers, books, tv appearances, documentaries. Those raise alarm among the public who, in turn, pressure the government for action. The government passes out money for more research, and the climate-change scientists retain their jobs and economic security.
I was in a discussion with a friend about man-made global warming last night. After he delivered a lengthy diatribe about trusting the experts and the dire consequences should no action be taken, I asked him to replace every instance of “man-made global warming” with “terrorism”… Did his argument sound then sound very familiar? Yep. Did it sound like the same argument used for things like the Patriot Act and Iraq War Resolution? Yep. Did those foreign policy analysts, intelligence officials, and terrorism experts have kids to feed, professional ambitions, retirements to fund, just like the climate-change scientists? Yep. Alarmism is big money for a lot of folks. And the cost to the rest of us high.
(for further reading on fear, alarmism, and scientific funding — http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 )
“That Al Gore shit”?
No, the majority of the scientific community’s “shit.”
If you look at the amount of “in doubt” and “it’s not true” articles in popular media versus the number of “it’s happening” articles in the scientific community’s literature, you’ll see the vast difference between what’s being sold to the public and what’s true.
One of the two can be easily “swayed” by those who stand to lose if global warming is accepted by the public. The other, not as easily. Guess which one is effected by manufacturers and energy interest and the average joe might sort of understand?
Climate change / global warming aside…
Higher CAFE standards make perfect economic sense to me.
First, the “free market” complaints…The gov’t intervenes in the economy all the time. Moreover, it’s impossible for them NOT to intervene somehow (taxes, at the least).
No one can argue that increased gas/energy prices have not affected other aspects of the economy beyond consumer vehicle purchases and gas budgets.
Energy is a base commodity, upon which everything else in this economy is built. It affects all aspects of the economy, and deserves oversight and regulation.
@TurboBrick:
before or after Diesel becomes 50 state legal?
Nice try. Not everyone wants to be like Europe… Sure Ikea, iPods, Macs, Starbucks and Smart Cars are really nice things and make life sooo easy for the stupid. But not everyone wants those things.
And who mentioned cars that go 4x the legal speed limit? Surely you jest. The idea that an affordable car reaches 280mph is ridiculous.
lets be realistic here. Those that understand how an automobile works please step forward.
*counts*… 1..2..3..4..5..6.. Ok you guys are good.
Those that yearn for a Prius, tell others to ride a bike and drive a hand me down
*counts* 1…2.3…4..5..6..7……..100….3000…
yeah… lets speak about what we know about.
@trollkiller: A little knowledge goes a short way. Nothing in your post about private property is applicable to driving a car.
1.) No one is taking away your vehicle. But if the government so chose, they could make it illegal to drive with no problem.
2.) Driving is a state governed process. If it was a right to drive, they could not require tests for the privilege to do so.
3.) If deemed a “health risk” the government is in very was justified by your own citation.
Drop the “killer” from your username- you’re simply a troll…
@trollkiller: In reference to your religious statement. Bush has not only stated believing in creationism (he’s made comments about the Grand Canyon being formed by Noah’s flood) and has made statements endorsing Creationism being taught in the classroom. That pretty much seals the case for me.
And by God if you didn’t completely tip your hand. You call me a liberal nutjob, but you’re a stereotypical whacko homeschooler. Avain and repiles coming from a common ancestor… Archaeopteryx. Gee a piece to the puzzle… who’d a thunk. How about that they carry extremely similar genetic make up? Nah, couldn’t be… The fact that they both share a heterogametic female having ZW and males having ZZ… huh, well that seems odd….
The truth is is that you are a christian right nutjob. The christain type (yes you mentioned there a good christians, and I agree) like Falwell and Robertson that are the reason people have such disdain for the Christian right. What I can’t believe is the audacity that you even call yourself a christian. You demonstrate NONE of Christ’s teaching or examples. I actually find it amusing to a point. Your complete lack of self-introspection will mean that this will pass right over your head. You will no doubt respond with vial and hatred as you have in other posts (not saying I haven’t… but then again I don’t claim to be a christian…)
@trollkiller: Of yeah and the constitution doesn’t give you the “right” to own anything specific. The government caps our rights (and rightly so) on may things. And by the way, you’re trying to amend your argument. Before it was your right to drive a gas guzzler… and I think was all know you are 100% wrong about that!
By 2020, CAFE standards of 35 MPG will be meaningless. There will be gasoline but it’s going to be sold in vials….
I don’t see why there has to be such a big bruhahaw over global warming. Isn’t it generally accepted that air pollution is bad for you?
@goller321: Damn dude, at least read. First you amended the argument by claming “anything specific” not the “anything” in your first post. Secondly I did not mention driving at all, I just cited the fact the Constitution recognizes privately owned property. BTW The privilege of driving ONLY applies to public roads, not private property. Yep that’s right, I can drive on my land without a license.
Logan called you a liberal nutjob, I called you a Loopy Lefty. Please keep it straight.
I asked you for some cites showing Bush is anti evolution. Like I said I don’t recall him saying anything like that. You said he did so I asked for proof. I did a Google search using “Bush evolution” and did not find what you say he said. So cite it or hush.
Archaepteryx is NOT the common ancestor, Archaepteryx is considered an interim animal (link) between Maniraptora (Theropod dinosaur) and birds. Please if you are going to try and spank someone at least take the time to verify your info.
So what post was vial or hate filled? Was it the “hippies smell”? Take a bath and cool off, you are pretty much babbling.